I'm a Libertarian living in Humboldt County, CA. I've lived here in Eureka since 1973 and joined the Libertarian Party in 1992. This blog will mostly focus on local political issues, but I may stray into state and national issues as well, when I can't help myself. Please post your comments by clicking on the "comments" link at the bottom of each post. Although I do moderate comments, you need not be a registered user to post them.

Monday, December 04, 2006

LiberALtarians?

The author in this Washington Post commentary takes a look at the relationship between Libertarians, Republicans and Democrats and wonders if it isn't time for Libertarians to align themselves with the Democrats.

I'm not so sure that I agree with his conclusion(s), but might agree that libertarians and liberals gain nothing by fighting over government's inevitable growth. Note I said might agree.

Absurd. Third parties either fight against the two party system or they are simply complicit in its criminality. Hence David Cobb and his corruption of the local Green Party. Don't go down that path Fred, you might get paid off like Cobb and his cronies, but at what price for the rest of us?

"Libertarians want less government interference in personal life, more in line with Republicans.".

I think the conventional wisdom is that Republicans are more in favor of economic freedom and Democrats more favorable towards personal freedoms.

That's just the conventional wisdom. I don't know it really holds true, at least anymore.

But, as I said earlier on another thread, Republicans are generally seen as favoring less government. The Democrats have never been seen as favoring less government, at least since I've been aware of political goings- on.

Some might say that's changed, since we've seen some teeth gnashing from the Left over Dubya's big government moves, but I tend to think that's just partisanship. If a Democrat was in the White House, you wouldn't be hearing near as much from the Democrats.

But, to the Democrat's credit, Russ Feingold was the only vote in the entire Senate against the PATRIOT Act. Then again, to the Democrat's fault, he was their only vote against it.

Well, there IS such a thing as "Libertarian Liberal". Fiscally conservative, socially liberal types like Howard Dean Dems have become more common in the Democratic party. We don't care what you do as long as you don't bother anyone else. We believe in good government, regulations as needed, a strong defense and genuine democracy. It remains to be seen what effect our kind will have on the Democratic Party, let alone the country. We do it for the grand-kids. Maybe they will grow up learning about Habeus Corpus and the First Amendment and the dark days of the new millenium...

Greg and all: we can't afford to be fiscally conservative in this day and age. Public education, healthcare, the AIDS crisis... if we actually want to fix any problems it is going to require massive government involvement. The market is not going to do these things on its own. It never has and it never will.

"Fiscally conservative" is a relative term that basically means smart government. Add-ons in congress should stop. Becoming a debtor nation in order to wage pre-emptive war should stop. No-bid contracts should stop. Cutting existing revenue streams from the very wealthy, then starving the poor - should stop. You get the idea. Maybe we should come up with another term: fiscally smart? moderate?

Libertarian and liberal are the same if the classical definition of liberal is used. Lately "liberal" has come to define the leftist/collectivist/politically correct (a Maoist term) groups anxious to utilize authoritarian policies to engage in social engineering (such as shane and heraldo) and more importantly to maintain power. Politicians such as Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales and the Sandinista Daniel Ortega are in fact Marxist in philosophy with a latin variation e.g. "chavista" or "sandinista". Indeed, the libertarian political parties in South and Central America call themselves "Partidos Liberales" and are supressed (sometimes violently) by the above named caudillos.

Shane wrote, "The market is not going to do these things on its own. It never has and it never will.".

Let's look at education:

I've read that the populace was much more able to read and write before government got involved in education.

I've also read that, federal involvement in government education began after the failure of "public schools", the first of which started after big cities established "Public Schooling". That didn't work, so people cried for answers.

This is what we have today:Schools run by politicians, bureaucrats, and the teacher's unions.

Yet, at the same time, homeschoolers beat government schoolers hands down, when the test results come in.

I'm sure other things you bring up, with regard to failure, are just as bad, in regards to government involvement.

It's not the "market" that doesn't handle things; People do. It's in their best interest.

Let's just see how well you do as a school board member. I'm sure that a commie, government oriented approach will have amazing results.

Make us proud, Shane, although history might well have already proven you wrong, my friend.

Never depend on government to solve a social crisis.Plain and simple.Same goes for the private enterprises(the free market) which steer the government.A change in social structure requires removing the bureaucracy which inhibits it.Relying on either of these 2 entities to solve anything is futile,as dependencies on either on either one allows them to feed off of one another.It's either creating government for the sake of the perception of needing government,or handing the reins to private enterprise for the sake of glorifying the advantages of relying on the free market.Neither of which create solutions which are better for anyone.

Hey Fred, Y'know you should probably not go the library at 3:00 AM On Arts Alive night. What are you doing down there?? Youre pickup is easy to spot, and I can pick up a John pretty easy. Is your wife OK with this????